Gay Patriot Header Image

Sometimes it’s fun to watch

Has Oliver Stone, the conspiracy-minded filmmaker, committed high crimes of HERESY and TREASON by questioning the Russia narrative?

“Mr. Putin is one of the most important leaders in the world and in so far as the United States has declared him an enemy – a great enemy – I think it’s very important we hear what he has to say.”

“[Stone’s new Putin documentary] opens up a whole viewpoint that we as Americans haven’t heard,” Stone said. “We went to see him four different times over two years.”

When questioned about allegations made by Democrats and the political left that President Trump has direct connections to Russia, Stone replied: “That’s a path that leads nowhere to my mind.”

“That’s an internal war of politics in the US in which the Democratic party has taken a suicide pact or something to blow him up; in other words, to completely de-legitimise him and in so doing blow up the US essentially,” he said. “What they’re doing is destroying the trust that exists between people and government. It’s a very dangerous position to make accusations you cannot prove.”

I’m old enough to remember when the Left stood for peace (or thought it did) and “understanding the Russians” was mandatory, as was “respecting the results of elections”. Stone is old enough, too. It will be fun to see if they’re going to turn on him.

Against ethnic identitarianism

First, let’s catch up on some lingo. Nathan Damigo, the guy who punched Moldylocks, founded something called “Identity Evropa” (meaning European). I visited the website and I did not find any statements that call for white supremacy; only for white/European identity.

Think of it this way. We have accepted identities such as African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American, Jewish-American, etc. In general, those identities don’t intend full-on Black or Latino or Asian or Jewish supremacy. They may sometimes achieve special privileges (for example, quotas or differing standards for the alleged races). But the majority of people holding to those identities don’t intend anything like a hard apartheid (or internment camps, etc.) for the other identities. In that sense, they usually aren’t “Black supremacists” or “Latino supremacists” or “Asian supremacists”, etc.

Damigo and company seem to be saying, we can get along with those identities but let’s have one for whites, too. They reject the term “white supremacists”. In the Rebel Media interview linked above, Damigo describes himself as a “white identitarian” and says that hysterical claims about his being a Nazi, a racist, etc. are just “anti-white hate speech” to shut down conversation.

It may sound almost reasonable until you remember that all identity politics are harmful. These guys are going in the exact wrong direction. They are doing a “Me, too” on racial identity politics. Like the others, they offer a cheap identity – “join the fraternity”, says their website. A San Diego Union-Tribune article says:

[As a Marine in Iraq, Damigo] saw firsthand the conflicts between the country’s ethnic and religious groups. “I said, ‘This is dumb. Why don’t … each one of them have their own country and they can all express themselves and … they’re not, you know, fighting with each other,” he told the Los Angeles Times in December.

In other words: Damigo might not want to harm or subjugate the other identities; but he thinks that both the Middle East and America should be even more ethnically-divided than they already are. Not good.

I believe in a melting-pot, American identity based on America’s founding principles of Human Freedom under Limited Government and the Rule of Law. Yes, the Left has pulled us all away from it with cheap, divisive identity politics. So let’s restore it.

When I come across identity-politics material of any kind (white, black or otherwise), the word “stupid” keeps popping into my head. I’ve been thinking about why that is. First, here is how I define the term. Interactions between 2 parties will have one of four outcomes.

  • I win, you win: That’s smart.
  • I win, you lose: That might be justice; if it’s not, then it’s predatory on my part, masochistic on your part.
  • I lose, you win: That might be justice; if it’s not, then it’s masochistic on my part, predatory on your part.
  • I lose, you lose: That’s just stupid.

With identity politics, everyone loses. Even the hucksters who gain financially from it are still losers – because they’re hucksters. If it’s stupid when Blacks or Asians or Latinos do it – and I’m afraid that it is – then it is equally stupid when whites do it.

All identitarians oversimplify their group’s history, and Identity Evropa is no exception. Their materials highlight Western civilization with majestic Greco-Roman-appearing figures next to slogans like “Let’s become great again”, “Serve your people”, “Discover who you are”, “Protect your heritage”. Fine. I like greatness and heroic art. But these guys seem unaware that Jesus was a Mediterranean Jew, and that the Greco-Roman civilizations (I dare not say “races”) were highly mixed, with a good deal of Mediterranean, Semitic (Phoenician), African and European heritage together.

They seem to forget that *culture is culture*. It isn’t about ethnicity, or tribe, or race, or genes, or color. It’s ideas; principles; the arts; laws and legal practices; philosophy; sciences; means of production and trade; food; ethics; things that can be adopted by anyone, of any ethnicity, at any time.

I am a Western supremacist. That is: I think that the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman-Lockean/Enlightenment civilization, while not perfect, is better than the others; it has the most elements from which an ideal civilization could be built. And I want to spread those good elements, by example and persuasion, to all ethnic groups (in America and the world).

It’s about the ideas/principles, and the individuals everywhere who may hold them. I couldn’t care less about the survival of *any* ethnicity as such. Ethnic identity is a sideshow, a rabbit hole where everyone loses, if we keep going down it.

And sorry Mr. Damigo, but if it does turn out that you’re one of those people who dwells on racial categories and uses them to pre-judge your fellow human beings: then yes, at that point you would be a racist. If you don’t want to wear that shoe, kindly make sure it never fits.

Democrats Against Reason and Enlightenment

Posted by V the K at 6:34 am - April 6, 2017.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

Did you know that Stanford accepted a kid into its freshman class whose application essay was nothing but the phrase “Black Lives Matter” repeated 100 times? This is the product of an elite culture that values virtue-signaling over reason: Schlichter:

But it is progressives’ total rejection of the norm of reason that is the real problem. It’s actually a wholesale rejection of the Enlightenment by those who babble loudest about being enlightened. Facts, evidence, logic – they have determined that these are horrendous obstacles to the imposition of their progressive dictatorship, and they are trying their best to stamp them out. In the place of offering Fact A and Fact B as the reasons to accept Conclusion C, they instead offer Hack Cliché A to lead to Pre-determined Conclusion B – as in “Be Silent and Obey Us.”

A conservative might argue, “Studies and experience show that the government giving free money to people tends to make them less likely to work and causes disintegrating family structures, leading to more poverty.” To which a progressive would respond, “You racist!”

Or a conservative might argue, “History has shown that military weakness and strategic indecision emboldens dictators.” To which a progressive would respond, “You racist!”

Or a conservative might argue, “Cheeseburgers are better with bacon because bacon is awesome.” To which a progressive would respond, “You racist! Plus I’m differently-abled due to lactose intolerance and also bacon offends our Muslim friends. So you’re ableist and Islamophobic too.”

Responding to reasoned points with personal attacks is not an argument. It’s throwing tantrum in the hope your opponent will simply grow frustrated and give up.

Goes a long way toward explaining why we can’t have honest, intelligent debate about policy. How can you have a reasoned debate with people who just want to attack the First Lady’s picture and get excited because one of Trump’s aides got taken off the National Security Council? How can you discuss logic and facts with people who just want to virtue-signal and chirp idiotic cliches like “building bridges not walls?

And Another One

Posted by V the K at 1:28 pm - February 7, 2017.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

Is anything in this short video untrue. No. The reason fewer and fewer thoughtful people identify with the left is because the left has become vapid, intolerant, and ever increasingly violent (and tolerant of violence).

The reason there are no thoughtful leftists is because thought itself has become haram on the left because independent thought might lead a thinking to the “wrong” conclusions.

YouTube Preview Image

Trump Must Be Hitler, Otherwise the People Who Said He Was Hitler Must Admit Being Wrong

Posted by V the K at 9:45 am - January 31, 2017.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

Interesting thesis. The idea that because so many on the left (and a few on the right) have been screaming “Trump is Hitler,” so loudly and so adamantly that they either have to make him into Hitler, or admit that they were being stupid and foolish.

Now you have literally millions of citizens in the United States who were either right about Trump being the next Hitler, and we will see that behavior emerge from him soon, or they are complete morons. That’s a trigger for cognitive dissonance. The science says these frightened folks will start interpreting all they see as Hitler behavior no matter how ridiculous it might seem to the objective observer. And sure enough, we are seeing that.

But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one.

George Will: #SadRepublican

Posted by V the K at 3:57 pm - November 3, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

George Will — who some of you may recognize as a token “conservative commentator” the Democrat Media Complex likes to  have on panels with 3 or 4 liberals — is very sad thar the Republican nominee is Donald Trump. So sad is George Will that he not only wants Trumpy to lose, he wants Trump to lose in a devastating electoral landslide that probably loses the House and Senate, too…. and also takes down talk radio forever. Because such a loss will reassert the power of the Washington Establishment and shut up those peasants in the countryside with their stupid yearning for change.

“Mrs. Clinton may win by four (percentage) points, but well over 300 electoral votes. That would help the Republicans,” Will theorized. “The Republican Party has to do several things. First, it has to somehow emancipate itself from its thralldom to the indignation industry of talk radio and certain cable personalities that I think have a paralyzing effect on the party when it tries to deal with things like immigration.”

Without talk radio, the GOP would have passed the “Amnesty Now/Border Security Later (Maybe… Or Maybe We’ll Just Forget About Border Security Once We Have Amnesty Like We Have Done Every Other Time Before)” Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills championed by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Like the rest of the Republican Establishment, George Will does not think the concerns raised by the “Basket of Deplorables” who are voting for Trump are legitimate. Their concern about the hollowing out of middle America … not legitimate. Their concern about the unchecked flood of immigrants and their effects on low-skilled job wages, schools, and welfare systems…. completely illegitimate. Their concern that Washington DC has become a cozy, cronyist cabal of politicians, lobbyists, donors, and media? Not legitimate at all.

Like most of the GOP, Will thinks that the Trump phenomenon is entirely based on personality and “racist/sexist/xenophobic” rhetoric that excites a certain stupid portion of the electorate who will all go back to eating the excrement sandwiches the GOP will provide once Trump is gone.

You know what else George Will doesn’t like? Blue Jeans.

Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults (“Seinfeld,” “Two and a Half Men”) and cartoons for adults (“King of the Hill”). Seventy-five percent of American “gamers” — people who play video games — are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six — so far — “Batman” adventures and “Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps,” coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy’s catechism of leveling — thou shalt not dress better than society’s most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism — of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.

Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.

(Which calls to mind an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati from the 1970s)

21st Century America as Medieval Europe

Posted by V the K at 2:49 pm - October 13, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

Victor Davis Hanson lays out the case that our modern era is not much more than the Middle Ages with sexting.

Closeted scholiasts wrote esoteric treatises that no one read. These works were sort of like the incomprehensible “theory” articles of university humanities professors who are up for tenure.
Medieval elites relied on massive walls and moats — sort of similar to what we see with the present-day gated estates of Malibu and Silicon Valley.
The great architects of the late Middle Ages could design majestic cathedrals at places such as Chartres and Rouen. But debt, incompetence, and quarreling meant that their construction — unlike the earlier construction of the Parthenon — took centuries to complete. The blueprints and mock-ups for California high-speed rail are as grandiose as the plans of medieval Gothic churches. But the reality of ever completing the project will require a half-century of cost overruns, lawsuits, and continual higher fees and taxes.

However, the people of the Middle Ages had something we lace… faith and spirituality.

People living in medieval times believed in transcendence and a soul, and sought to keep alive culture until civilization returned. People living in modern times increasingly live for their appetites without worry about what follows — with little awareness of what has been lost and so not a clue about how to recapture it.

He’s Right, That’s Exactly What It Is

Posted by V the K at 2:00 pm - September 29, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

“[PC Culture is] a way of marginalizing normal people.” – Norm MacDonald.


Murderous Ideologies and Absolute Power

Posted by V the K at 10:28 pm - September 1, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

A Long Read, but very worthwhile. It is not only an insight into the psychology behind the atrocities of Stalin, but also to the impulse that facilitated those atrocities.

 Soviet Marxism rejected the very concept of human rights. Leninist ideology instructed one to think of classes, not humanity. What race was to Nazis, class was to Bolsheviks, and class origin, like race, was not something one chose. People born into bourgeois, noble, or kulak families had no more right to life than Jews or Gypsies did to Nazis.

Substitute the word “privilege” for class and you can hear the echoes of this impulse in the rhetoric of the Social Justice Left of today. The American left has tacitly rejected the very concept of human rights as being bequeathed by God and substituted the idea that rights are granted (and hence can be taken away) by the State. Free Speech, to the American Left, is no a basic human right, but an article of privilege that can be revoked if the speech offends a homosexual, a Muslim, a trasngendered, a feminist, an illegal immigrant, or any other identified group one is forbidden to offend. Freedom of religion, ditto. Freedom of conscience, ditto. On our college campuses… which are, in terms of ideological conformity, if not mass-murder … the most Stalinist institutions in our country, young males are, as a matter of policy, denied human rights such as due process when accused by rape, regardless of how specious the charge is.

And the tool to negate the universality of human rights is the notion of “privilege.” Hostility toward privilege is just warmed over Marxist class rhetoric, tarted up with big, academic-sounding nonsense words like “intersectionality” and “microaggression.”

The article goes into detail about the atrocities committed by Stalin and his underlings, and the justification for mass murder, imprisonment, and torture. And the root of it all was loyalty to Socialist Ideology and the Communist Party.

Comrades, none of us wishes or is able to be right against his Party. The Party in the last analysis is always right, because the Party is the sole historical instrument given the proletariat for the solution of its basic problems. . . . I know that one cannot be right against the party. It is only possible to be right with the Party and through the Party for history has not created other ways for the realization of what is right.

Something to think about whenever Hillary’s crimes or Obama’s abuses of power are defended by other Democrats for the good of the party. Something also to think about when social justice leftists like Dan Savage muse about how wonderful it would be if all Republicans “dropped dead” and are rewarded with applause from Bill Maher’s audience of trained leftist seals.  Or, for that matter, when the Democrat Left’s new pet hate group, #BlackLivesMatter, calls for and celebrates the murder of people they oppose, and are rewarded with positions of prominence at the Democrat National Convention.  Or the fact that the current Democrat president was mentored by a wannabe terrorist and mass murderer, who is not merely defended by the media and his party, but treated as an honored and celebrated citizen.

Socialism has always been a dehumanizing, destructive, and ultimately murderous ideology.

They wear those Che shirts for a reason, you know.

The Motto of Gay Conservatism

Posted by V the K at 5:13 pm - August 12, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends


Gay Billionaire Techno Vampires for Trump

Posted by V the K at 8:45 am - August 2, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

Give a gay guy a few billion dollars and suddenly he’s Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed.

More than anything, Peter Thiel, the billionaire technology investor and Donald Trump supporter, wants to find a way to escape death. He’s channeled millions of dollars into startups working on anti-aging medicine, spends considerable time and money researching therapies for his personal use, and believes society ought to open its mind to life-extension methods that sound weird or unsavory.

Speaking of weird and unsavory, if there’s one thing that really excites Thiel, it’s the prospect of having younger people’s blood transfused into his own veins.

As society becomes more automated and wealth more concentrated, it’s not a hard leap to imagine a dystopian future where the poor and young have nothing to offer but their bodies to the wealthy and old.  Other billionaires are pumping money into research toward having their consciousnesses transferred into a cybernetic realm. Of course, that wouldn’t actually be your consciousness, would it? It would just be a copy of it. You’d still be dead; there would just be a copy of you stored in cyberspace.

The amount of ego and narcissism … hubris, I suppose… is epic; to believe you are so important that your essence is worth preserving at any cost. I imagine thousands of lives of less fortunate people could be made better for the fortunes being poured into this research. And at the end of it…. supposing they even achieve their goal… they are merely prolonging their existence in a deeply flawed, imperfect world (although I am pretty sure the flaws and imperfections are less apparent if one is a billionaire).

Hat Tip: NRO


Protesters Demand More Crime and Welfare Dependency

Posted by V the K at 7:56 am - July 21, 2016.
Filed under: Hysteria on the Left,Ideas & Trends

The Movement to Abolish Police Departments is moving into the mainstream of the left. Left-wing activists want police defunded to pay for more Free Sh-t.

IMHO, the cops should take them up on their offer; declare parts of major cities “Police-Free Zones” and focus their efforts on protecting people who want police protection while leaving the other areas under the control of “Community Systems of Justice” or whatever. They could even release all those “non-violent offenders” into the PFZ’s where they would assuredly be welcome.

“Our mandate, in this time, is to avenge the suffering of our ancestors.”

Apparently, this means voting for the party that fought for Jim Crow and slavery.

Kurt Schlichter on what we owe our political “betters”

Posted by V the K at 9:43 am - July 4, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends


There is one law for them, and another for us. Sanctuary cities? Obama’s immigration orders? If you conservatives can play by the rules and pass your laws, then we liberals will just not enforce them. You don’t get the benefit of the laws you like. We get the benefit of the ones we do, though. Not you. Too bad, rubes.

There used to be a social contract requiring that our government treat us all equally within the scope of the Constitution and defend us, and in return we would recognize the legitimacy of its laws and defend it when in need. But that contract has been breached. We are not all equal before the law. Our constitutional rights are not being upheld. We are not being defended – hell, we normals get blamed every time some Seventh Century savage goes on a kill spree. Yet we’re still supposed to keep going along as if everything is cool, obeying the law, subsidizing the elite with our taxes, taking their abuse. We’ve been evicted by the landlord but he still wants us to pay him rent.

Now it seems we actually have a new social contract – do what we say and don’t resist, and in return we’ll abuse you, lie about you, take your money, and look down upon you in contempt. What a bargain!

It’s not a social contract anymore – American society today is a suicide pact we never agreed to and yet we’re expected to go first.

I say “No.”

We owe them nothing – not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. Nothing.


Posted by V the K at 1:53 pm - July 1, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends



On a Related Note:  Your friendly Government TSA beats the living crap out of a disabled cancer patient; to keep you safe.


Brexit: Marine Le Pen vs. the Clueless Elites

Two contrasting items today, in the Establishment press.

In Foreign Policy magazine, James Traub says “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses”. Yes, that is the title of his article.

It’s a trashy piece, packed with elitist cliches and the occasional jaw-dropper (for example, when he refers to Washington’s infamous “K Street” lobbyists with approval). Yet it’s a tortured attempt to begin to face reality:

The issue, at bottom, is globalization. Brexit, Trump, the National Front, and so on show that political elites have misjudged the depth of the anger at global forces…

Actually no, Mr. Traub. Globalization, in itself, is not the problem. -Dictatorial- globalization wherein the political elites wrongly seek to enslave people, is the problem. But kudos to you, for beginning to tell the said elites that maybe there could be some sort of systemic problem.

A good contrast: In The New York Times, Marine Le Pen says “After Brexit, the People’s Spring Is Inevitable”.

British voters understood that… only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny?
More and more, the destiny of the European Union resembles the destiny of the Soviet Union, which died from its own contradictions.

There’s much more. As the saying goes, “Read the whole thing.”

UPDATE: Over at The Guardian, it’s even worse than the James Traub piece above. David Van Reybrouck’s article is titled “Why Elections Are Bad For Democracy” (yes, for real).

Starting from a blind premise that Brexit is obviously awful, he says “Voting is the problem” and suggests, in all seriousness, that citizen referenda should be replaced by focus groups (called “sortition” to make it sound nice and historical) which will be guided by the elite’s approved experts. (Via ZH.)

How Does BREXIT Affect Gay People?

Posted by V the K at 11:52 am - June 24, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

Answer: Pretty much the same way it affects everybody else.

Shouldn’t all politics be viewed that way, instead of the “What’s good for my tribe” paradigm that dominates 21st Century political discussion?


Point to Ponder

Posted by V the K at 9:37 am - June 20, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

This is floating around the social media. It might explain the Obama Administration’s fierce determination to separate the Orlando Disco Massacre from Islam-Inspired-Terror, even to the extent of censoring the 911-call transcripts.

I checked in on MSNBC earlier today where the thrust of discussion seems to be centering around whether or not the Orlando shooting was an act of terrorism or a hate crime.

Wasting a moments breathe debating which term is the most politically correct way to respond to an attack on U.S. soil should seem ridiculous to any serious thinking person.

However, for leftists these distinctions are critical.

What exactly is the difference between an act of terrorism and a hate crime?

The answer is simple.

  • A terrorist attack is an act of war which demands a forceful retaliation against enemy combatants.
  • Hate crimes are a legal weapon created by Cultural Marxists specifically to attack Americans with traditional views.

Defining the Orlanda attack as the latter vs the former allows Obama to pivot the retaliation away from ISIS and back to his political opponents..



Beyond Outrage

Posted by V the K at 2:12 pm - June 11, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

As I have thought more about it, the reason I reacted as I did to the Brock Turner rape story was because I didn’t feel outraged when I first heard about it. My reaction when the story came across — “Can you believe this white college jock only got six months in jail for raping an unconscious woman in a dumpster?” — was 1. “Well, that’s sh-tty.” and 2. “What are they *not* telling me?” But it was never. “OMG! I’m furious! Where can I sign a petition? What’s the judge’s email so I can send him anonymous death threats?”

Which I guess is how I was supposed to react. I recognized the injustice of the situation, but, try as I might, I just couldn’t summon the will to get that pissed off about it.  And then I realized, it wasn’t just that. I wasn’t able to get outraged by anything anymore.

I wasn’t outraged by tranny bathrooms, I just thought they were a symptom of society’s ongoing detachment from reality. I wasn’t outraged when they shot Harambe the gorilla; just annoyed at the stupidity that followed.  I think I was a little outraged by Donald Trump’s campaign , but then I was like, “What’s the point? Whatever.” I wasn’t even outraged when the story came across of ISIS burning the Yazidi girls to death. My reaction was, “That’s freakin’ terrible. Those freakin’ savages deserve to die. Why haven’t we killed them all.” But there wasn’t any strong emotion behind the thought.  My ability to feel outrage at Hillary and Obama is long gone.

I think my ability to feel outrage is just plain gone.

Maybe I’ve been asked to feel outrage about so much so often that my ability to feel outrage is just “Pfft.”

Suppose I had been outraged by the Brock Turner case.  What would that accomplish? What would that benefit anyone? What would that benefit the victim? What would that benefit me?

Is there any point to showing outrage except to demonstrate that “I am outraged by this and that demonstrates I have superior social standing over those that are not outraged.”

Maybe what lies beyond knee-jerk outrage is the place where you calmly examine both sides and reach a position that, while not emotionally satisfying, seems reasonable. Reasonable analyses are not very popular, these days, because they are not emotionally gratifying. Yet, true emotional gratification in anything is as elusive as Robert Denby.  People chase emotionally gratifying conclusions; most of which do not involve resolving the issue so much as lashing out at people they didn’t like before the issue even became an issue. After lashing out, and sometimes even after punishing the people they hate, they discover they are still not happy. This just makes them more angry. And it’s easier for politicians to keep us outraged than it is solve problems anyway. Besides, social media clicks are not generated by level-headed analysis.

I don’t expect the world to become more reasonable; not in my lifetime.  There’s too much crazy, and too many people willing to accommodate crazy. I’m just gonna live by the credo “Not my monkeys, not my circus.”

And next week, when whatever thing we are supposed to be outraged about happens, I’ll be ready.

YouTube Preview Image

Theodore Dalrymple Explains Why the Left Forces People to Embrace Lies

Posted by V the K at 6:11 pm - May 12, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” 
― Theodore Dalrymple

There are at least fifty genders. You will be punished for believing otherwise.

There are no differences in physical abilities or psychological orientation between men and women; if there are not enough women in math and science, and too many men working as firefighters, it’s because society is flawed. The Social Justice Narrative insists that this is so. You will be punished for even suggesting anything otherwise.

There is no correlation whatsoever between terrorism and Islam. Terrorism is caused by Islamophobia. The hurt feelings of Muslims are the real tragedy. The State will arrest you for suggesting otherwise.

Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were harmless, innocent schoolboys gunned down by racist white cops. The Social Justice Narrative insists that this is so. It is racist to point out that blacks commit crimes against other black people.

The best part of “Believe” is the “Lie” – Fallout Boy

Hairy Chests Are Back, Baby

Posted by V the K at 11:41 am - May 12, 2016.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

And not just on female-to-male gender appropriators.

 “The metrosexual has left the room!” saysJack Dunn, a male grooming expert with his own salon in Islington. “Guys now coming in for their first waxing treatments tell us that they are under strict instructions from their partners that they can get anything waxed but their chests. As a result, we’re seeing a huge increase of men with hairy chests.” “A few years ago it was common to see clients with shaved or waxed chests, but it seems that men no longer think that removing hairs from their chest is a masculine thing to do. Who knows why? Perhaps it’s because partners prefer the more manly, rugged look?”